A Meta‐Analytic Review of Board Characteristics and Carbon Emission Disclosure: The Moderating Effect of Contextual Factors

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:This meta-analysis provides rigorous pooled estimates and identifies key moderators (mandatory vs voluntary regimes, legal systems) that explain heterogeneity in board-governance effects on carbon disclosure.

🏢実務担当者:Companies can strengthen carbon transparency by appointing environmental committees and increasing gender diversity on boards, but the effectiveness depends on the regulatory environment — mandatory regimes amplify the positive effects.

🏛政策担当者:Regulators should consider that mandatory disclosure frameworks enhance the governance-disclosure link, and that legal origin (common vs civil law) influences the direction of CEO duality effects on carbon transparency.

The relationship between board governance and corporate carbon emission disclosure remains persistently inconsistent across the empirical literature, despite decades of accumulated evidence. Drawing on agency, stakeholder, legitimacy, institutional, and upper echelons perspectives within a single analytical framework, we conduct a three‐level meta‐analysis with robust variance estimation to correct for within‐study dependence, synthesising 66 studies and 140 effect sizes across diverse institutional contexts over 2010–2024 while explicitly modelling institutional and methodological boundary conditions. Environmental committees and gender diversity are the strongest predictors of carbon transparency, followed by board size and independence; CEO duality yields no significant aggregate effect. These pooled estimates, however, mask substantial contextual variation. Governance efficacy is strictly contingent on institutional setting: effects are markedly larger under mandatory reporting regimes than voluntary ones, are strongly attenuated in North American markets relative to Asia and Europe, and CEO duality undergoes a directional reversal—positive in common law systems and negative in civil law systems. Research design type and disclosure measurement framework account for a meaningful additional share of between‐study variance. Internal board structures and external institutional pressures thus operate as mutually reinforcing rather than substitutive mechanisms—a finding that carries targeted, jurisdiction‐specific implications for investors and regulators designing climate disclosure mandates.

• semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.70678first seen 2026-06-29 08:26:38